coq-club AT inria.fr

Subject: The Coq mailing list

List archive

Re: [Coq-Club] Notation with "Type"

From: Guillaume Brunerie <guillaume.brunerie AT gmail.com>
To: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi AT dogguy.org>
Cc: coq-club AT inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Coq-Club] Notation with "Type"
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 18:49:13 +0200
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=SUzkjSpFUc3St0kbbFpo0eaYE4ZSofjl7xNAtnC+szhaTh8mWH2Lu6Jrxdoohz3c96 5d1oVzrmrKKpW9092mqFfi9ZMp7JB/i7rMkqmcBo4RPEuah6CtMOsZ2vR7w4Ova0XePn mJ2R8D8uRNPxkgym/1AM/kaDn5ZhYcU7fe75E=

2011/6/8 Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi AT dogguy.org>

On 08/06/2011 17:03, Guillaume Brunerie wrote:
> The following does not work as expected:
>
> Parameter f : Type -> Type.
>> Notation s := (f Type).
>> Check s.
>>
>

I could be wrong but isn't "Definition s := f Type" enough for your needs?
(why do you need Notation?)

Indeed, but in my case what I actually want is "Notation "#s" := (f Type)", because this term has a special meaning and I want to distinguish it from the other identifiers in the script.
I could have written "Definition __s := (f Type)", or something like that, but I find "#s" prettier than "__s" (and I need "Notation" for that).

Guillaume

[Coq-Club] Notation with "Type", Guillaume Brunerie
- Re: [Coq-Club] Notation with "Type", AUGER Cedric
  - Re: [Coq-Club] Notation with "Type", Guillaume Brunerie
- Re: [Coq-Club] Notation with "Type", Mehdi Dogguy
  - Re: [Coq-Club] Notation with "Type", Guillaume Brunerie
    - Re: [Coq-Club] Notation with "Type", Hugo Herbelin